Polidoro v Bekaert Combustion Technology (CFI, 18 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 18 December 2025, given in infringement action UPC_CFI_716/2024 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_205/2025, the Mannheim Local Division dismissed the counterclaim by Bekaert Combustion Technology and NV Bekaert against Polidoro’s patent EP 2 037 175 (premixed burner, especially for condensation boilers) and found infringement by one of the two Multipat series burners. It granted an injunction for seven States, recall and destruction, an information order and liability for damages since 23 December 2016. The outcome is split, with the construction of a negative feature (« no internal distributor ») separating the two embodiments.

Facts and procedure

The patent, filed on 2 September 2008 with an Italian priority of 12 September 2007, had been maintained in amended form following opposition before the EPO. After cross-licence negotiations failed, Polidoro sued for Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal over two embodiments (A and B). The first defendant makes and sells the burners, the second advertised them on its website (paragraphs 3 and 6). Polidoro filed seven conditional auxiliary requests. The hearing took place on 6 November 2025.

The applicable law

Jurisdiction was established under Articles 31 and 33 UPCA and Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (paragraphs 32 to 34). Validity was examined under Article 138(1) EPC (added matter, insufficiency, novelty and inventive step) and Article 65 UPCA, corrective measures and damages fall under Articles 63, 64 and 68 UPCA.

Question

Is claim 1, which requires a perforated disk that itself distributes the mixture with no internal distributor, the disk and flange being made integrally, valid, and do the two Multipat burners fall within it?

Decision

The division construed the « internal distributor » as a device that leads the mixture to the burner surface and distributes it longitudinally. Feature 13 requires only the general distribution function, and « integrally made » means made from a single body (paragraphs 44 to 59). Neither added matter nor insufficiency was found (paragraphs 63 to 76). Novelty was upheld over the prior uses and documents relied on. WO’733 is not prior art under Article 54(3), priority being validly claimed for claim 1 (paragraphs 77 to 113). Inventive step was acknowledged, as nothing prompted the skilled person to make the disk and flange in one piece (paragraphs 114 to 139). Embodiment B infringes claim 1, its perforated disk performing the distribution. Embodiment A does not, its annular protrusion being an internal distributor (paragraphs 141 to 143). The measures carry penalties (up to EUR 100,000 per day for the injunction). Publication and interim costs were refused and no security was required (paragraphs 149, 151 and 156). Costs were split 25% to Polidoro and 75% to the defendants, reflecting overall success (paragraph 154), and the value in dispute was set at EUR 4,000,000.

Key points for practice

• A negative feature (« no internal distributor ») can both preserve novelty over prior art and take an embodiment outside the claim (paragraphs 93 and 143).
• A claim construed functionally (feature 13) is not insufficient where at least one way of carrying out the invention is disclosed (paragraphs 72 to 76).
• For acts before the UPCA entered into force, the date from which negligence is assumed may be left to the damages assessment proceedings (paragraph 150).
• Practical point: costs follow overall success across the action and the counterclaim, so partial success on infringement weighs on the proprietor’s share of costs.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31, 33, 63, 64, 65, 68 and 69

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118, 125, 150 and 354

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 123(2) and Art. 138(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4(1), Art. 24(4), Art. 26(1) and Art. 63

Case law cited

Amgen v Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sibio, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2025, Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v Amgen, 16 July 2024, Paris Central Division, 21 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_311/2023), Hurom v NUC Electronics Europe, 11 March 2025

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.